Present vs For The
2022 Latest Caselaw 976 Tri

                                   Page 1 of 3


                       HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                             AGARTALA
                              WP(C) 990 OF 2022

                         Dr. Smriti Sankar Nath
                                    Vrs.
                       The State of Tripura & 4 Ors.

Present:
    For the petitioner (s)      : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate.
                                  Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Advocate.

     For the respondent (s)     : Mr. M. Debbarma, Addl. G.A.

Mr. B. Majumder, Dy. S.G.

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH 22.11.2022 Order Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the State-respondents and Mr. B. Majumder, learned Dy. S.G. appearing for the respondent-Union of India.

Briefly stated, the petitioner was a Doctor under the Tripura Health Services, Govt. of Tripura. He has retired on 31.08.2022. He has filed the present writ petition raising his grievance that as per ROP Rules, 2017 he was supposed to be paid leave encashment, gratuity and regular monthly pension i.e. the retiral benefits. But, till today the respondents did not sanction/release regular monthly pension with full and final payment of gratuity.

This court asked Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. as to why he was not paid such benefits. Mr. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. has drawn my attention to the Demand Notice dated 29th August, 2022 [Annexure-3 to the writ petition]. On the basis of said Demand Notice, learned Addl. G.A. has submitted that gratuity and pensionary benefits have not been released to the petitioner in view of the report furnished by an Audit team, wherein, it is observed that during the financial year 2012-2013, a total amount of Rs.1,11,000/- (Rupees one lakh eleven thousand) only had been paid by the petitioner in cash as Medical Officer-

in-Charge of Mohanpur CHC and the said amount was paid to ASHA Workers in cash, violating the Government guidelines [Annexure-1].

The petitioner had received copy of the said Demand Notice and duly submitted representation. It was stated that at the relevant point of time, no Government financial circular directing payment of monetary amount through direct A/C payee cheques was issued by the Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of Tripura. The petitioner has further stated in the representation that "for the purpose of smooth functioning of ASHA honorarium, training program, the common practice throughout the State of Tripura was payment by cash only as otherwise as mentioned above, no official circular was issued for Financial transactions in any other mode."

Learned Addl. G.A., Mr. Debbarma, has not produced any government guidelines regarding payment mode to ASHA workers, applicable at the relevant period of time. More so, I have noticed that it is the matter that was occurred in the year 2012-2013 and after a lapse of 10 years suddenly, the issue has been taken up by the Audit team as well as the respondents and further, when the petitioner was retired from service. There is no allegation of any defalcation. It is admitted in the Demand Notice itself that the petitioner had utilized the said amount of Rs.1,11,000/- towards payment to ASHA workers.

Mr. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. has interpreted the Demand Notice that the petitioner defalcated Rs.1,11,000/- which is contrary to the fact stated in the Demand Notice. Mr. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. has further submitted that in pursuance of the Judgment of this court in WP(C) (PIL) No.23/2019, this Hon'ble High Court directed the Government to constitute a Scrutiny Committee and in pursuance of that directions, the Government of Tripura had constituted a Scrutiny Committee.

I have considered the said submissions of Mr. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. Since it apparently appears that the petitioner had paid the amount and had not misused the amount in any manner whatsoever and admittedly, he paid the amount to ASHA workers in the discharge of his duties, and more so, in absence of any Government guidelines, there is no ground to withhold the payment of gratuity and pension of an employee.

In view of this, I direct the State-respondents to release the gratuity amount and regular pension to the petitioner alongwith other benefits within a period of two months from today. If the process of payment as directed here-in- above is not complied with within the said period, then, the entire amount will fetch interest @ 6% per annum.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ petitions stands allowed and disposed.

JUDGE

sanjay